NIGERIA: DEBT NEGOTIATIONS STALL; PLANS FOR

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 001375 SIPDIS SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED PARIS ALSO FOR OECD E for WMCGLYNN EB/IFD/OMA FOR PREID STATE PLEASE PASS TO EX/IM FOR DSOMERVILLE, DSCHNEIDER AND ROBINSON E.O. 12958: DECL: 16JUN11 TAGS: EFIN ECON PREL NI SUBJECT: NIGERIA: DEBT NEGOTIATIONS STALL; PLANS FOR AN EXPANSIONARY SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET DENIED REF: A) CARRIG-MULLINAX 12JUN01 EMAIL, B) STATE 97771, C) STATE 79460, D) TURNER-CARRIG 3MAY01 EMAIL, E) HESS-ARIKAWE LETTER DATED 3MAY01 Classified by Ambassador Howard F Jeter; reason 1.5B/D -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (C) At meetings in Abuja June 11 and 12, senior GON economic policy-makers were thoroughly pessimistic regarding near term prospects for achieving consensus on the U.S.-Nigeria Bilateral Debt Agreement required to implement the December 2000 Paris Club rescheduling. A.S. Arikawe, Debt Management Office Chief, opined that the GON would request a three-month extension on Paris Club bilaterals so that the U.S. and nine other creditor nations might "develop reasonable positions" on debt relief. Policy-makers were dismissive of press reports that the GON intended to double its spending for 2001. Nevertheless, Principal Secretary to the President Steve Oronsaye's logic for contending that a 130 billion naira "supplementary budget" would have "absolutely zero" net effect on capital spending for the year is as opaque for us as it is for the IMF. End summary. ¶2. (U) TDY U.S. Treasury Advisor Lisa Cook and Economic Section Chief met June 11 with Principal Secretary to the President Steve Oronsaye and Director SIPDIS General of the Debt Management Office Mr. A.S. Arikawe for discussions regarding a debt swap for environment clean-up initiative (Ref B and Septel). ¶3. (U) In subsequent side-bar conversations with EconChief, the GON interlocutors commented on the state-of-play regarding the Bilateral Debt Rescheduling Agreement (Refs C, D and E) and a rumored supplementary budget that media reports held would double the expansionary 2001 spending plan approved already by the National Legislature. -------------- Bilateral Rescheduling Agreement -------------- ¶4. (C) Arikawe was thoroughly pessimistic on prospects for a near-term and successful conclusion to U.S.-Nigeria negotiations regarding the bilateral debt rescheduling agreement required to implement the December 2000 Paris Club rescheduling. He declared several USG provisions within the agreement "unacceptable to Nigeria" and "impossible" to fulfill because they were "too contentious." Arikawe declined to identify any provisions he found unacceptable, beyond those concerning payment of "reasonable expenses" incurred in contract enforcement actions and unilateral suspension rights as already noted in para 6, Ref C. ¶5. (U) However, Arikawe promised (for the third time since our initial request shortly after his May 3 meeting at the Department with Treasury, State and Eximbank officers) to provide the GON position in writing by a date certain. This time his self-imposed delivery date is Monday (or Tuesday) June 18 (or 19). ¶6. (C) Arikawe volunteered that the U.S. is not the only creditor with which the GON has serious differences. He said nine other bilateral agreements were similarly stalled. In a June 12 follow up conversation, Arikawe summarized the negotiations' state-of-play by noting that Nigeria planned to request a three-month extension for negotiations so that Paris Club creditors might have time to "develop reasonable positions" on debt relief. -------------- Expansionary Supplementary Budget Denied -------------- ¶7. (C) Oronsaye opened the discussion regarding a supplementary budget on his own volition. He acknowledged that, indeed, there would be a supplementary budget. However, he averred, press reports describing official sources as confirming the President's approval of a supplementary budget doubling the spending already programmed for 2001 were "irresponsible and thoroughly false." He estimated that the supplementary would not exceed 130 billion naira (vice the 894 billion in some press reports) and insisted that none of the supplementary would derive from "new" appropriations. ¶8. (C) According to Oronsaye, the supplementary budget is merely an "administrative necessity" mandated by the Constitution and it would have an "absolutely zero" net effect on capital spending this year. As he described it, there is a need to "prioritize" spending on power production and the provision of water to rural areas. To move these projects to the head of the spending queue, he continued, requires National Assembly approval since the Assembly already had approved capital spending for ¶2001. ¶9. (C) Comment. We found Oronsaye's explanation of the need for a supplementary budget unconvincing and June 12 shared his logic with IMF ResRep R. van Til. He, too, was puzzled by Oronsaye's comments, but pointed out that it is the spending total, not how the GON cares to characterize its genesis, that counts as the bottom line. The IMF, he allowed, is more concerned that Nigeria remains "off track" on virtually all indicators set out last summer for policing the now moribund Stand-By Arrangement. And, he said that although Article 4 consultations with the GON (in preparation for the June 29 report to IMF's Executive Board) were scheduled to conclude on Friday, June 15, much work still remained to be done. End comment. Jeter